Hillary Clinton sounded alarm on Biden's political viability 'by 2024,' Klain told House investigators
Klain spoke with staff on the House Oversight Committee for over five hours on Thursday, as Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., continues to probe whether top Biden aides concealed signs of mental decline in the ex-president.
A source familiar with his voluntary interview told Fox News Digital that Klain believed Biden was mentally sharp enough to serve as president, and was not too old to run.
But the ex-secretary of state and former Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan both "approached Ron Klain stating they believed Joe Biden was not politically viable" months before he dropped his re-election bid in July 2024, the source said.
Sullivan told Klain that Biden "was less effective in 2024 compared to 2022," the source said.
It's not immediately clear if Biden's mental acuity was the reasoning for their doubts, nor if they made the case to Klain together or separately.
But it's a significant indictment coming from top national Democrats of Biden in general, long before concerns about his fitness for office within the party were made public knowledge.
Sullivan had been a top aide to both Biden and Clinton, having served as the latter's senior policy advisor during her 2016 campaign.
Klain, who served as White House chief of staff for the first half of Biden's term, conceded that the then-president was less energetic and more forgetful, though he defended his "acuity to govern," the source said.
"Mr. Klain stated that President Biden often confused names and proper nouns, and it got worse over time," the source said.
Fox News Digital was told that Klain also said there was no reason to doubt President Donald Trump's own mental fitness.
Klain said nothing to reporters when going in or out of the committee room Thursday.
He's the sixth former Biden administration aide to appear for Comer's probe.
And despite the interview being largely staff-led, Comer did make an appearance for the early half of the sit-down, and Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., were both briefly there as well.
Both Biggs and Khanna called Klain "credible" from what they saw inside the room.
"I think he is telling what he knows accurately," Biggs told Fox News Digital.
On the other side of the aisle, Khanna told reporters, "He answered every single question. He was fully cooperative."
Three other former Biden White House aides who previously appeared – Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, and ex-White House doctor Kevin O'Connor – all appeared under subpoena and pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions.
Longtime Biden aide Ashley Williams and ex-staff secretary Neera Tanden, like Klain, came for voluntary transcribed interviews.
Jeff Zients, who served as Biden's chief of staff for the final two years, was also asked to sit for a transcribed interview, a committee aide previously told Fox News Digital.
A source familiar with the Biden team's thinking previously called Republicans' probe "dangerous" and "an attempt to smear and embarrass."
"And their hope is for just one tiny inconsistency between witnesses to appear so that Trump's DOJ prosecute his political opponents and continue his campaign of revenge," that source said.
When reached for comment, Adrienne Watson, a representative for Sullivan, told Fox News Digital, "Jake did not have a conversation with Ron about Joe Biden running for president before the debate."
Fox News Digital also reached out to Klain's attorney as well as a contact for comment for Clinton but did not hear back by press time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized President Trump over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire, increased aid to the war-torn enclave and the release of all remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group. 'During the first six months of Donald Trump's time in office, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a breaking point, hostages are still being held by Hamas despite the President's promise they would be released and the pre-existing ceasefire the administration inherited has been breached,' Jeffries said in a statement on Friday. 'The starvation and death of Palestinian children and civilians in an ongoing war zone is unacceptable.' 'The Trump administration has the ability to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis. They must act now,' he added. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday that the U.S. will step away from peace negotiations in the region and is now considering alternative ways to free the hostages taken by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.' The Hill has reached out to the White House spokesperson for comment. Dozens of aid groups have warned that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of starvation, with one in five children being malnourished in Gaza City, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while waiting in food lines, according to the UN. Israel has argued that Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group, 'operates every day to create a perception of crisis.' U.S. allies, including Australia, the United Kingdom and France, have similarly sounded the alarm over humanitarian conditions in the strip and have called for more aid. The House Democratic leader also reupped his calls for a two-state solution in the nearly two-year conflict. 'It is imperative that humanitarian aid be surged into Gaza immediately, the remaining Israeli hostages be released and the ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration restored. We need a just and lasting peace,' Jeffries said in his statement. 'Ultimately, that will only occur through a two-state solution that facilitates a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, self-determination and prosperity for its people,' the New York Democrat added. To help out the Palestinians, Israel is allowing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air-drop aid packages into Gaza. The 2023 terrorist attack left some 1,200 Israeli's dead and roughly 250 hostages were taken captive. Nearly two years later, the Israeli military has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to local health affiliates. That number does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.
